ICRISAT ESA 2007 by Green Ink Ltd.

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region

2007 Highlights

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region

2007 Highlights

ICRISAT–Nairobi Regional Hub − Eastern and Southern Africa PO Box 39063, Nairobi 00623, Kenya 2008

Citation: ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) Eastern and Southern Africa Region. 2008. 2007 Highlights. PO Box 39063, Nairobi, Kenya: ICRISAT. 52pp. An ICRISAT semi-formal publication issued for limited distribution without formal review.

About ICRISAT The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) is a non-profit, non-political organization that does innovative agricultural research and capacity building for sustainable development with a wide array of partners across the globe. ICRISAT’s mission is to help empower 600 million poor people to overcome hunger, poverty and a degraded environment in the dry tropics through better agriculture. ICRISAT belongs to the Alliance of Future Harvest Centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of ICRISAT concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Where trade names are used, this does not constitute endorsement of, or discrimination against, any product by the Institute.

Writing and editing: Swathi Sridharan Photo credits: Unless otherwise stated all photographs were taken by ICRISAT scientists at the various locations. Design, layout and proofreading: Green Ink (www.greenink.co.uk) Printing: Pragati Offset Pvt. Ltd (www.pragati.com)

Cover photo: Farmers in South Africa are trained on using small doses of fertilizer in their maize fields – one of ICRISAT’s initiatives to maximize returns on limited inputs.

Contents

Contents Preface

Obituary

Highlights Small Doses and Small Packs: Promoting Fertilizer Use in the Limpopo Province Seed Trade Harmonization: Creating a Regional Market for Seed Increasing Area and Production of Chickpea in Tanzania Ethanol from Sweet Sorghum: Working Partnerships in Mozambique The Adoption of Improved Groundnut Varieties in Uganda: Lessons and Policy Options ReSAKSS-Southern Africa: Informing Those Who Make Policy Disaster Preparedness, Relief and Recovery: How to Respond Successfully to Natural Disaster and Conflict

Appendixes Publications Staff List Acronyms

37 44 47

7 13 16 18 22 26

iii

Preface

Preface True partnerships are defined by trust, respect, collective ownership, clear delineation of responsibilities and accountabilities, as well as a common vision and understanding of the goals to be achieved. It is these types of partnerships that generate innovative solutions and sustainable impact. ICRISAT has developed strategic partnerships with a variety of stakeholders in the agricultural sector that include development partners (such as NGOs, donors etc.), value chain partners (input suppliers, farmers, retailers), policy makers (regional, national, and international), and with our peers (scientists in the region, universities, other CGIAR centers etc.) The 2007 ICRISAT-ESA Annual Report tells seven stories of partnerships. Fertilizer is often a limited input in rural systems of eastern and southern Africa. By working with a fertilizer company, farmer organizations, the private sector, and the national research and extension service, ICRISAT was able to test the hypotheses that small doses of fertilizer generate the maximum rates of return on farmers’ investment and that providing farmers with a choice in pack size can encourage fertilizer use. Finding high-quality seeds of improved varieties is often another challenge in the region. ICRISAT contributed to addressing this constraint by working at two levels: the policy level to harmonize regulations and create a regional market, and at the farmer level by helping entrepreneurs become commercial entities. The stories on chickpea, sweet sorghum, and groundnuts – three of ICRISAT’s mandate crops − highlight the partnerships that have led to the breeding and testing of new varieties resistant to diseases and abiotic stresses as well as for new uses such as biofuel. Through partnerships with the national agricultural research and extension departments, farmers, and the private sector, chickpea is fast gaining ground in Tanzania, the challenges and opportunities represented by sweet sorghum in ethanol production are being clarified, and the factors that determine adoption of improved varieties in Uganda are better understood. By building alliances at the policy level, ICRISAT, through the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System for Southern Africa (ReSAKSS), has helped policy makers make informed decisions that promote growth in the agricultural sector. And, finally, partnerships

with the other CGIAR centers through the Regional Plan for Collective Action, has led to an increased ability to promote food security in a region where natural disaster and conflict are regular events. We hope that these stories capture the impact that can be brought about through teamwork and strategic partnerships.

William D Dar

Said Silim

Director General

Regional Director for Eastern and Southern Africa

Obituary

Fran Bidinger ICRISAT mourns the sudden death of Fran Bidinger, who passed away on 7 April 2008 in Hyderabad from a virulent form of leukemia. Fran worked with ICRISAT as a crop physiologist for most of his working life before retiring in 2001. However, he continued to work for the Institute on a voluntary basis. He was 66 years old. Fran, an American national, joined ICRISAT in October 1976. During his tenure, he led the program of basic and applied crop physiology research primarily on pearl millet. He also worked as Regional Executive Director at Patancheru, Acting Associate Director General (Research), and Secretary of the Board of the International School of Hyderabad. He retired as Principal Scientist (Physiology), Genetic Resources and Enhancement Program, at ICRISAT in June 2001. Post-retirement, Fran worked as a Visiting Scientist at ICRISAT. He will be remembered fondly as a dedicated field experimentalist, who worked hard to develop and test hypotheses about adaptation, stress tolerance, and yield improvement that integrated crop physiology concepts with approaches that could be adopted in applied plant breeding programs. Adoption of several screening systems that his team developed has contributed to the success of ICRISATâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cereal improvement programs. Fran was also an excellent mentor, contributing substantially to the training of young scientists from around the world on research organization, data analysis, and preparation of manuscripts for publication. His efforts in assisting the national pearl millet improvement programs in Namibia and, most recently, Eritrea were particularly effective. Finally, when called on to do so by ICRISAT management, Fran always gave of his time. Just before his death he was assisting in the development of a major funding proposal on sorghum and millets and had spent time in Nairobi to participate in a stakeholder workshop. We dedicate this report to his memory.

Highlights

Small doses and small packs

Small Doses and Small Packs: Promoting Fertilizer Use in the Limpopo Province For many of the 1.2 million smallholder farmers in the Limpopo Province of South Africa using fertilizer is a high-risk activity in a high-risk environment. The province receives an average rainfall of 300−500 mm per year. The chances of a drought here are high. Using fertilizer in such an area is risky because the benefits of fertilizer are only reaped in years of average and above average rainfall. If the rains fail, as they often do, the fertilizer, and more importantly, the farmer’s investment can be lost. “As a result most farmers have adopted low fertility strategies at the cost of missing out on the good seasons,” says John Dimes, Senior Scientist at ICRISATBulawayo. The risk associated with fertilizer use is especially high if farmers attempt to follow the national agricultural extension service recommendations on fertilizer use. These blanket recommendations are intended to achieve maximum results and do not take into account what a farmer can truly afford. For example, farmers in the Limpopo Province are often told to use about four 50 kg bags of starter fertilizer and two 50 kg bags of topdress fertilizer for a one-hectare field of maize. This works out to R650/ha at 2006 prices and much more now with rising energy costs. “This is a very high investment given the uncertain rainfall,” says Dimes.

Small doses The idea of small doses of fertilizer stems from the desire to minimize risk. This is best achieved by adopting fertilizer investments that offer the highest payoff. Crop simulation analysis combined with on-farm research in the province has shown that smallholder farmers can apply up to 14 kg/ha of nitrogen topdressing without increasing their risk of losing

Farmers in Mokaseng receive training in applying small doses of fertilizer.

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

their investment due to uncertain rainfall. “Because soil fertility is such a constraint, small doses can increase production in nearly all seasons,” says Dimes. “Basically using small doses increases the yields without necessarily increasing the risk. Farmers get a better return on their initial investment and improve their food selfsufficiency.” The results from on-farm trials in three districts in the Limpopo Province over the course of three seasons revealed that the small doses of topdress nitrogen increased grain yield by more than 50% compared to farmer practice. Dimes also calculated the value–cost ratio of using small doses. The value– cost ratio or VCR is a measurement that researchers use to assess the viability of

technology adoption. It is calculated from the value of extra grain produced relative to the control and the cost of the additional inputs. If the VCR is more than 2:1, in other words, if the value of the extra grain produced is double the cost of the fertilizer needed to boost the yields, the technology is likely to be adopted. “We found that the value–cost ratio for small doses easily exceeded the 2:1 threshold in all seasons,” says Dimes. In comparison, the VCR for the blanket recommended rates only reached 2:1 in the better rainfall seasons (Figure 1). As Jude Odhiambo, a professor at the Department of Soil Science, University of Venda, puts it, “The idea of small doses allows you to maximize what you have. It makes economic sense.”

4.00 3.50

3.59

3.56

Low N

3.00 2.50

2.32

2.00

Recommended fertilizer

1.64

1.50 1.00

0.83

0.50 0.00 2004

2005

2006

Figure 1. The value–cost ratio of maize grain yield response to fertilizer investments in on-farm trials conducted in Limpopo Province, South Africa.

Small doses and small packs

When the results of the small doses research were first presented to the Department of Agriculture, people such as Jeffrey Mkhari, the Manager of Agronomic Research and Innovation at the Ministry of Agriculture, were skeptical. “I was one of the people who said at the beginning this is not going to work,” Mkhari says. “But now I think that the Department needs to take this up seriously for our smallholder farmers. We should run with it.” Mkhari is interested in creating a manual on fertilizer recommendations for the Limpopo Province. “Our previous recommendations were not based on any research done in the province,” he says. A manual will go a long way to institutionalize the results of the project and ensure sustainability beyond the lifespan of the project. Dimes judges the sustainability of the small doses research in another way. “I take heart with the fact that Sasol Nitro has endorsed an MSc agronomy student to evaluate small doses of nitrogen and phosphorous in maize-based cropping systems,” says Dimes. Sasol Nitro is a leading manufacturer of fertilizer in South Africa and has captured around 23% of the national market share. Cedric Kgonyane, the Sasol agronomist pursuing his Masters degree at the University of Limpopo, is enthusiastic about small doses. He is working with farmers in four locations within the province and comparing the effects of small doses to common farmer practice, which often is to not use any fertilizer at all. The farmers he works with are of two kinds Kgonyane says – those who have never used fertilizer before and those who have

used fertilizer before but who can’t afford the recommended rate. “All the farmers really appreciate the idea of small doses,” Kgonyane says. “We showed them how to apply it and they know the dangers of fertilizer as well as the benefits.”

Small packs Providing farmers with choice also provides them with increased flexibility to face the challenges of farming in a high-risk environment. Smallholder farmers in the Limpopo Province used to be able to purchase only 50 kg bags of starter and topdressing fertilizer. By using a unique partnership between private and public sector agents as part of the Limpopo Community Development Program (LCDP), ICRISAT was able to test the idea of introducing small packs of fertilizer − 10 and 20 kg bags as a way to get farmers with no experience in fertilizer use interested in using the technology as well as providing those farmers with prior experience but who are cash-strapped with a more affordable option for purchasing fertilizer. In 2005 Dimes as a member of the LCDP approached Sasol Nitro to consider packaging fertilizer in the smaller pack sizes. Sasol Nitro agreed to the experiment. In the 2005/2006 season the small packs of fertilizer were distributed throughout the province at Progress Milling depots. Progress Milling, a grain milling company with more than 70 depots throughout the Limpopo Province, has been in existence since 1957. Farmers in the province can bring their grain to be milled at the nearest

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

A woman farmer in Perskebult takes home small packs of fertilizer.

depot. In exchange they can take already milled meal or they can sell their grain to the depot for cash. The depots also sell other products such as fertilizer and certified seed. Since around 30% of all the grain milled at Progress Milling is produced by smallholder farmers, the company is very interested in helping farmers increase their productivity. “To date we have trained more than 200 extension staff in the Department of Agriculture as well as many farmers,” says Masenya Masenya, Director of Corporate Communications at Progress Milling. “We created the Progress Education Trust to do the training so as to synchronize the message with the commercial requirement.” One of the most important topics of the training is fertilizer use. Robert Motjelele, a Progress Milling depot manager at Lenyenye, has seen an increase in grain being delivered to his depot from the neighboring farmers. He

attributes this to the availability of the fertilizer. “This has not been a good season,” Motjelele says. “But I have already received 220 tons of maize. I didn’t expect this myself.” Motjelele took in a total of 200 tons in the previous season when rainfall was better. A 10 kg pack of fertilizer was priced at around 40 Rand in 2006/07. A 20 kg pack cost 86 Rand and the 50 kg bag cost 206 Rand. “It is easier for farmers to part with R38 than R200,” says Jean Simpungwe. Simpungwe is Development Coordinator based at Progress Milling, which is a joint position with three other organizations: Sasol Nitro, Pannar Seeds and the Limpopo Agricultural Strategic Team (LIMPAST). It is her responsibility to coordinate the fertilizer and seed distribution to the depots scattered throughout the province. “Poor farmers really go for the small packs, especially in areas where they do a lot of gardening,” Simpungwe says “The 10 kg bag sells like hot cakes.” The actual fertilizer sales figures over the last two seasons corroborate Simpungwe’s statement. There has been an increase in fertilizer sales through the Progress depots every year for the last 3 years, from almost none in 2004 to a peak of 210 tons of fertilizer in the most recent 2007/2008 season. In 2007/2008 a total of 1749 10 kg bags of fertilizer were sold, a 10% increase from the 977 bags sold in 2006/2007. The small packs attract a certain kind of buyer. Isaac Minde, Economist at ICRISATBulawayo, has found that farmers who have not previously used fertilizer prefer the small packs. Interviews with 75 farmers in the Limpopo Province in 2005/06 showed

Small doses and small packs

that about one-fifth of those who had bought small packs had only started to use fertilizer that year. About 75% of farmers who had bought the 10 kg pack had fewer than five years experience with fertilizer. Farmers with more than five years of experience tended to buy the 50 kg bags of fertilizer “The small pack is not a panacea for accelerated agricultural technology use,” says Minde. “But it entices first time users to experiment with small quantities of fertilizer. In addition to the small packs, we should educate farmers in fertilizer use and give them a choice of products and invest in infrastructure and credit provision.”

The unique characteristic about the case of South Africa is that it is a working example of a public–private–farmer partnership. Progress Milling, Sasol Nitro, LIMPAST and the Limpopo Province Department of Agriculture (LPDA) were all interested in improving farmers’ incomes. And they were able to find a way to do so without compromising their individual objectives. “We can’t take this for granted,” Minde says. “There aren’t many examples of this type of partnership. We can learn a lot about merging various interests and objectives and these lessons should be used when scaling out this project’s results to other countries.”

Farmers unload their harvest at a Progress Milling depot.

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

APSIM – The uses of modeling The Agricultural Productions Systems Simulator (APSIM) allows researchers to model a variety of production and management related parameters, such as nitrogen, phosphorous, pH, and water balance, for a variety of crops in order to determine the ecological and economic outcomes of a set of management decisions. In this project funded by the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Dimes worked with three groups of stakeholders in order to assess and visualize risk. 1. Modeling with smallholder farmers The APSIM model was used to expose smallholder farmers and extension officers in the two districts of Mopani and Capricorn to various alternative technology investment options and help them decide upon experimental treatments and protocols. The farmers in both districts decided that they were interested in branching out into legumes and were curious to see what sorts of yields and profits they would obtain. “More than 50 farmers in this area are now growing legumes,” Odhiambo says. The model really helped to explain the technology and farmers were more willing to accept and adopt legumes.” The farmers also tested the effects of fertilizer on legumes by applying small doses to half their fields. “Our experiments ran side by side with Dimes’. It helped farmers see the benefits of legumes as well as fertilizer,” Odhiambo says. 2. Modeling with researchers and extension staff The project held workshops to introduce researchers and extension staff to the capabilities of soil–crop simulation

modeling and its ability to deal with the resource and biophysical constraints of smallholder farming systems. The model allowed the researchers and extension staff to play the role of the smallholder farmer and better understand how they cope with allocating their scarce resources in a risky environment. For Alphonse (Phonnie) Du Toit, Senior Research Technician at the Agricultural Research Council (ARC), the APSIM model “is a wonderful investment.” The ARC worked with Dimes in conducting some of the nitrogen response trials in the province as did LIMPAST. LIMPAST CEO, Pieter Cronje, was also pleased with APSIM. “I was surprised how well the model could predict production in the marginal areas. It provided a lot of shortcuts in experimentation,” he says. 3. Modeling with banks Dimes also took the model to Landbank, a government parastatal, and eventually to the Banking Association South Africa to explore its use in loan assessment for smallholder farmers. “The banks were very taken by APSIM,” Dimes says. “For example, the model output showed how rules of thumbs on threshold yields for loan assessments tended to be too conservative in their own risk exposure.” Feedback from the workshop was very positive and the commercial bank participants expressed the view that the simulation of alternative management scenarios and the display of probability of exceedence graphs were exactly the information of benefit to banks and insurance companies.

Seed trade harmonization

Seed Trade Harmonization: Creating a Regional Market for Seed Years of selection and breeding produces a variety with particular specifications such as resistance to a disease or tolerance to drought. However, often once this variety has been released, its full potential is not realized and its benefits are not captured by farmers because of delayed or limited access to seed.

isn’t large and neither is it in Malawi. But if we put them together, then it becomes interesting,” says Jones. “If you own a seed company and you can market in the whole SADC region, then you can really capitalize on economies of scale.”

Thinking big

In order to create a regional market, a policy framework needs to be established to facilitate the movement of seed across country borders. “In many countries the rules are quite restrictive,” says Jones. For example, most countries require that a newly developed variety undergoes several years, usually three, of testing before it can be submitted for official release. This is the case even if the variety has already been tested and released in a neighboring country with similar growing conditions. “Under the new SADC agreement, if the variety is released in two countries, then it can be entered into the regional catalogue and marketed in all 14 countries,” says Jones. All 14 SADC Permanent Secretaries of Agriculture endorsed the new agreements that will create a regional market in August 2007. The agreements target three areas: regional variety release, regional seed certification/accreditation, and sciencebased quarantine pest lists. The regional

The reason for the lack of seed comes down to economics. Commercial seed companies are reluctant to invest in producing seed of improved varieties, especially those of secondary crops, because the national market is often too small. “It has to impact the pocket. These are business decisions after all,” says Richard Jones, Scientist at ICRISAT-Nairobi. “Seed companies are also reluctant to introduce proprietary materials into markets where they cannot be protected,” he adds. The public sector has to protect its own materials and manage its intellectual property to maximize the benefits of publicly funded breeding programs. One of the ways to encourage investment is to think big. A regional market for seed can be the carrot that attracts commercial seed companies to start producing seed of improved varieties. “The size of the seed market in Zimbabwe

Creating a regional market

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

seed certification system establishes a set of common standards for seed of the 11 most traded crops. The science-based quarantine pest list eliminates the need to quarantine for pests that are known to occur across the region and the associated import/export manuals establish transparent procedures to be used among all SADC countries. The harmonization agreements were drawn up with technical support from the Seed Science Center at Iowa State University, and collaboration between many partners including ICRISAT, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). These agreements are waiting to be fasttracked through a SADC Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by the SADC Council of Ministers sometime in 2008. One of the next steps is to pursue seed trade harmonization across countries belonging to the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). Merging the southern African market with

Partnerships that work: Waziweyi and Ruface.

eastern Africa has the advantages of further expanding the market and stimulating additional commercial investment in seed trade. Increased seed trade will also improve national seed security as natural disasters such as droughts tend to affect eastern and central Africa at different times than those in southern Africa. As the region moves from signed agreements to an increased flow of improved seed across national boundaries, farmers will have more choice as well as access to more affordable quality seed. As Jones says, “These seeds are there to be agents of change.”

Nzara Yapera − an end to hunger Peter Waziweyi grows a variety of crops on his farm outside Chimoio, Mozambique. “Whatever I produce is related to seeds,” says Waziweyi. And in a way he is right. He grows baby tangerine, orange, lychee, avocado and mango trees, which he sells to other farmers. He also produces maize, bean and cowpea seed that he sells to a small seed company of which he is a part owner. Waziweyi has named his farming enterprise, Nzara Yapera − an end to hunger. A few years ago, Waziweyi attended a seed producer meeting conducted by ICRISAT where he learned the techniques of producing certified seed, including isolation and rouging. He recently produced 3.5 tons of seed, which he sold for 9 Meticais per kilogram. “ICRISAT is trying to shape the seed industry in a way that will give results,” Waziweyi says. Celso Ruface, a scientific officer at ICRISAT–Maputo based in Chimoio, works with farmers such as Waziweyi. Besides

Seed trade harmonization

providing training in seed production, Ruface also helps new companies get registered with the Ministry of Agriculture as seed producers and helps them with processing their seed. “We are looking for seed producers with the capacity to be a seed company,” says Ruface. So far, he has identified five farmers, or entities as he calls them, in Manica Province with this potential and his counterpart in Nampula, Tiana Campos, has identified six. The reason for working with these farmers is to find ways to make certified seed available to small-scale farmers. “Most breeding in Africa is supported through the public sector. But the public sector has failed dismally in getting products to the market,” says Jones. “We propose public−private partnerships to move the products of research into the hands of entrepreneurs.” According to Ruface, Mozambique does not have a problem with seed. “But we have a real problem with quality seed. I have seen it many times that people buy grain, clean it and then sell it as seed. With the new seed harmonization agreements we will need to work hard to be on par with other countries. If we don’t then we will not be able to benefit from the regional market,” he says. Mauricio Dengo is another farmer with a lot of potential. Dengo attended ICRISAT’s certified seed production training and also attended a training session at ICRISAT Headquarters in India. In 7 years he has grown the agri-business he started with his wife and only one employee. He now owns a total of five outlets, one in the town of Chimoio and others scattered in villages. These shops sell certified seed as well as agricultural products such as fertilizer, tools, animal husbandry products etc.

Mauricio Dengo at his shop in Chimoio, Mozambique.

“The first two years I was selling seed of other companies. But my clients were not happy because there was no diversity in varieties and we didn’t get the seed on time,” Dengo says. He now produces his own brand of certified seed of cowpea, pigeonpea, maize, and bean with the aid of 47 contract farmers. His Dengo Commercial bags of seed bear his logo − a maize cob that forms the letters DC. “We don’t have a research program of our own. We depend on IIAM for research. We buy basic seed and follow all the rules of certification and seed testing,” says Dengo. IIAM is Insituto de Investigaçao Agraria de Moçambique, the national agriculture research and extension service. “We are a small company and so we have a lot of challenges. ICRISAT is helping us a lot. They are really pushing us to improve ourselves,” says Dengo. “We originally only wanted to be just in Manica, but we are now selling in all the country. Even the so-called big seed companies are starting to feel that there is a bit of competition.”

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

Increasing Area and Production of Chickpea in Tanzania Chickpea in the Lake Zone of Tanzania is one of the most important cash crops that provides income for smallholder farmers. “Even though it is important, prior to 2000 there was no research being done on this important crop, says Said Silim, Director of Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA). In recognition of the importance of this crop and realizing the opportunity to improve farmers’ livelihoods through improving chickpea production and marketing, ICRISAT partnered with Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Mwanza on a chickpea promotion project in 2000. The project used a two-pronged approach: one was to find high-yielding varieties that were resistant to Fusarium wilt, a fungus that infects plants through

Farmers at a field day evaluate desi chickpea.

the rootlets; the other was to introduce the kabuli variety to farmers in the region. Kabuli chickpea often fetches a higher price than the brown-seeded desi type on the international market. “We tested five promising varieties,” Silim says. The varieties (four kabuli: ICCV 2, ICCV 9238, ICCV 96329 and ICCV 95423 and one desi: ICCV 97105) were originally developed at headquarters in India but were based on the constraints and agro-ecologies of ESA. The varieties were then sent to Kenya to determine their adaptation, resistance to diseases in the region, particularly Fusarium wilt, time to maturity, seed size and color, and grain yield. Those varieties that performed well in Kenya were then constituted into nurseries and sent for further evaluation elsewhere as needed. The five chosen varieties were evaluated in participatory trials with farmers in two regions: Shinyanga (Shinyanga Rural, Kishapu, Kahama, and Bukombe) and Mwanza (Kwimba, Missungwi, and Magu). The project also held field days to elicit farmer feedback and the grain was taken to traders to get feedback on those traits that were preferred by the market. Seed of the varieties in the on-farm trials were also multiplied. “The project has made tremendous strides in the last eight years,” says Silim. Two varieties (ICCV 97105, a desi type, and ICCV 92318, a kabuli type) have been

Chickpea in Tanzania

identified. Both varieties are resistant to Fusarium wilt and ICCV 92318 is large seeded, a trait preferred by consumers. Farmers growing these new varieties have obtained increased yields. For example, the average yield of the local variety is 700 kg/ha whereas the improved desi variety produces on average 1,000 kg/ha and the kabuli type 900 kg/ha. Since the inception of the project, the area under the crop has increased from 12,000 to 70,000 hectares and production from 9,000 to 50,000 tons. The main reasons for the increase in area and production include increased awareness of the importance of the crop for income generation and efforts of CRS in forming farmer groups and linking them with markets. Collective marketing of chickpea has also made a difference. CRS has seen a threefold increase in the amount of chickpea that is collectively marketed, from 570 tons in 2006 to 2,152 tons in 2007. Part of this increase is attributable to the sale of 1,801 tons of desi chickpea to one trader, Afrisian. Afrisian established contacts with the farmer group and paid a commission of 12 Tsh per kilogram purchased. The collective sale of improved desi and the introduced kabuli varieties increased by 11% and represented 16% of total collective sales in 2007. The early success of the collective marketing has raised farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; confidence and strengthened the membersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sense of ownership of their organization. Many challenges still remain. Marketing is proving to be a challenge as the price of the introduced kabuli type, which was twice to four times that of the desi varieties when the project was first initiated, has dropped due to oversupply in the

international market. It also appears that buyers are not prepared to pay a premium for quality produce. Another challenge is that for farmers to truly benefit from the price premium they need to produce larger volumes and this is proving to be difficult. However, there is still a huge demand in the international market for chickpea, particularly the desi type. Tanzania can still capture some of this market because this chickpea reaches the market before the chickpea from Burma, a large exporter to India. With funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), ICRISAT and national partners in Tanzania are intensifying their effort. This new initiative has a number of approaches. First, is to continue to conduct participatory farmer evaluation of higher yielding varieties with resistance to Fusarium wilt. In the 2007/2008 cropping season three kabuli and three desi varieties were tested in five districts in Tanzania. Second, the project is evaluating nurseries with 20 accessions and those found to be superior will be evaluated on farm. The aim behind this is mainly to increase productivity and hence profitability. Third, is to ensure a supply of quality chickpea seed and effectively link farmers to the market. Fourth, the initiative expects to expand the area under chickpea through two approaches: chickpea is currently grown as a bonus crop after maize and under residual moisture and the inititative is now targeting areas under rice as a second crop. In addition, it is also expanding to the northern zone in Arusha and Karatu districts and the early results in these areas are very encouraging.

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

Ethanol from Sweet Sorghum: Working Partnerships in Mozambique The demand for ethanol Outside of Brazil, Sweden uses the most ethanol. The country has invested in 1300 stations that pump fuel that consists of 80% ethanol. “In 2007 there were only three car models on the market that were flexifuel. In 2008 we have 16−18 cars,” says Monika Branks, Executive Director of Eco Energia de Moçambique. It looks like the demand is going to continue to grow. “The objective is to become independent of oil,” says Branks. In 2005 a European Union directive required that at least 2% of petrol and diesel use should be biofuel based. Sweden went beyond this goal by reaching 2.2% biofuel use at the end of 2005. The country is now aiming for the new goals of 6% biofuel use by 2010 and 20% by 2020. One of the main companies focused on developing the market for bioethanol in northern Europe is a Swedish company called SEKAB. SEKAB delivers about 90% of all ethanol in Sweden for the E85 and ED95 grades (the latter is the ethanol for heavy vehicles). Forty percent of the ethanol made from sugarcane, which is exported from Brazil, goes to SEKAB. Eco Energia is a small start-up company that has partnered with SEKAB in order to develop alternative sources of ethanol. When Branks started working for Eco Energia

in September 2006, the price of 1 barrel of oil was USD 70. “Today the price for a barrel is USD 139,” she says. The rising prices of oil provide the context for SEKAB’s work on two fronts. The company is trying to increase the production of ethanol per hectare and at the same time helping to develop and promote cars that are more fuel efficient.

The supply of ethanol While ethanol is usually made from sugarcane it can be made from other crops as well. Sweet sorghum is emerging as an attractive option because of its shorter growing period (around 4 months). Sugarcane takes 12−16 months to be harvested, meaning that the sugarcane ethanol distilleries are only able to operate during the sugarcane crushing season, which lasts 180 days out of the year. If another crop such as sweet sorghum is also processed at the same plant, efficiency and profits would increase as the plant could run for more days out of the year. Another advantage of sweet sorghum is that it requires less water to grow than sugarcane and is better suited for certain agro-ecological zones. “Water is a problem in the south part of Mozambique,” says Carlos Dominguez, ICRISAT Country

Eco Energia

Ethanol from Sweet Sorghum

Sweet sorghum in Chipembe, Mozambique.

Mussa checks on sweet sorghum trials in the province of Cabo Delgado.

Representative for Mozambique. “There is some sugarcane growing there, but it is not the right crop for this area and uses a lot of water.” Maize yields in the same area are only 200−300 kg per hectare. If sweet sorghum is substituted for sugarcane, the available water can be used for crops other than sugarcane. Table 1 provides a comparison of the various characteristics of sweet sorghum and sugarcane.

is new. We have more than 100 years of experience growing sugarcane but that is not the case for sweet sorghum. There is a lot to learn.” Abdalla coordinates Eco Energia’s research on sweet sorghum in Ocua, Chipembe, and Catapua − three locations in the province of Cabo Delgado in northern Mozambique. “The soil, climate and rainfall are different in these three areas. The idea is to compare results,” says Mussa. ICRISAT has given Eco Energia 24 varieties of sweet sorghum and 16 hybrids to screen for a variety of traits such as the overall yield, Brix values (sugar content), biomass yield per hectare, quantity of juice, and time of harvest. ICRISAT is also helping to analyze the data collected from the various

Sweet sorghum research “You might be sitting on oil, but without research you won’t know it,” says Abdala Mussa, an agronomist for Eco Energia. “To think of sorghum as an industrial crop

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

Table 1. Comparison of sweet sorghum and sugarcane Parameter

Sweet sorghum

Sugarcane

Crop duration (months)

Water requirement (m )

4000

36000

Grain yield (t ha )

2.0

−

Ethanol from grain (l ha−1)

760

−

1400

5600

13.3

Ethanol from residue (l ha )

1000

3325

Total ethanol (l ha−1)

3160

8925

220

995

Cost of cultivation with irrigation water (USD ha )

238

995

Ethanol cost per kilo liter (USD)

75.3

111.5

−1

Green stalk cane yield (t ha ) −1

Ethanol from stalk cane juice (l ha ) −1

Stillage/stover (t ha ) −1

−1

Cost of cultivation (USD ha ) −1

−1

Eco Energia

locations. “These sorts of public–private– research partnerships are crucial,” says Dominguez. “ICRISAT has years of research on sorghum to offer our partners.”

Harvested sweet sorghum.

The initial results are promising. “The varieties are doing very well in Chipembe,” says Mussa. Most varieties are producing sugar within 90−120 days, though the earlymaturing varieties are producing sugar even before that. Besides finding the correct varieties that will flourish in the soil and growing conditions of Mozambique, there are other challenges as Branks is quick to spell out. Some of the questions that still remain include how to mechanize the harvest of sorghum, how to promote this crop to farmers, and how to start processing it quickly because the sugar from sweet sorghum starts to ferment in less than 48 hours, which ultimately reduces the amount of ethanol produced. “We still have to find the right recipe,” Branks says. “But SEKAB is in it for the long haul.”

Ethanol from Sweet Sorghum

Public−private−farmer partnership: ICRISAT and MIA Moçfer Industrias Alimentares (MIA) is a seed production company that works with farmer associations in Mozambique to produce quality basic seed of different crops. The company has been in existence since the beginning of 2007. “Our goal is to produce food for the country,” says António Jorge, Research Coordinator at MIA. Jorge’s job is to determine what types of crops to focus on in the different agro-ecological zones of Mozambique as well as to develop suitable packages for the farmer associations involved. MIA’s contract farmers are working on 2,000 hectares in the country. “We want to reach 10,000 hectares. The growth of our company is through farmer associations,” says Jorge. “Ours is a commercial enterprise working in the middle of a family-oriented system.” Working with smallholder farmers is both a challenge and also an opportunity to help inject a source of income into the rural areas.

So far, MIA has focused on producing rice seed. Dominguez helped MIA by finding suitable rice varieties for the company to evaluate. “Today Mozambique is selfsufficient in basic rice seed,” he says. “MIA is now interested in testing other crops. We have got them wheat seed to test.” The Mozambican government has set a goal for the country to be self-sufficient in wheat production by 2010; this will require farmers to produce 600,000 tons of wheat. MIA is also interested in growing seed for maize, groundnut, chickpea and sweet sorghum. The company has established a trial field in Chokwe, Gaza Province, with sweet sorghum varieties from ICRISAT. The varieties were harvested in June 2008 with promising results. MIA has formalized its relationship with ICRISAT through a Memorandum of Understanding which was signed in 2007. The company realizes the importance of these relationships. “We are trying to develop more alliances,” says Jorge. “Building alliances is the most important work for us now and in the future.”

ICRISAT and MIA staff extract the juice from sweet sorghum stalks to measure sugar content in Chokwe, Mozambique.

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

The Adoption of Improved Groundnut Varieties in Uganda: Lessons and Policy Options With about 200,000 ha and 160,000 tons, Uganda is a major producer of groundnut in eastern and southern Africa. However, there has been no significant increase in groundnut production in the last few years. For example, production in 2006 was only 6% higher than the production in 1999. This lack of progress is mostly a result of diseases and pests such as the rosette virus, leaf spot, rust, aphids, thrips and jassids. Rosette is the most important factor limiting production and undermining the ability of dryland farmers that rely on this crop to increase incomes and improve nutrition.

Serenut 4) were released by the end of 2002. The Government of Uganda and development partners funded aggressive promotion programs after the release of these improved varieties. The promotion was led by Uganda’s National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS), a quasigovernment organization established in 2001 to develop demand-driven farmer-led agricultural service and technology delivery systems in the country.

The results of breeding In an effort to raise production levels, the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) of Uganda in collaboration with ICRISAT started a targeted breeding program in the early 1990s. NARO used ICRISAT’s improved groundnut materials and the screening, evaluation and selection activities were done at NARO’s Serere Agricultural and Animal Research Institute (SAARI), located near Soroti town. The program aimed at identifying and selecting varieties with resistance to rosette virus and tolerance to abiotic stresses, especially drought. As a result of this effort a total of five improved groundnut varieties (Igola, Serenut 1, Serenut 2, Serenut 3, and

NARO poster promoting Serenut 2.

Improved groundnut varieties

Adoption and impact “Despite these efforts at improving the productivity of groundnuts in Uganda through promotion of improved varieties, there are very few studies that have examined the adoption and impact of those varieties that have been released,” says Bekele Shiferaw, Scientist at ICRISATNairobi. So Shiferaw and a team of ICRISAT scientists decided to take a closer look at the adoption levels, constraints and policy options for stepping up the uptake of improved groundnut varieties in Uganda. “Our study analyzes the groundnut adoption issues using a large sample of farmers to examine the socioeconomic, physical, and institutional factors that affect farmers’ decisions to adopt a new variety,” says Shiferaw. Unlike several adoption studies this study does not treat all improved varieties equally. Most studies on adoption compare only one improved variety against the traditional ones. “Adoption is often measured as the decision to grow any one of the improved varieties,” says Shiferaw. “This study takes into account the possible correlation in the adoption of alternative improved varieties.” It also looks at constraints related to adoption such as poor supply of seed in local markets. The ICRISAT team conducted two surveys. One was a reconnaissance survey conducted with scientists from NAADS to discuss key issues with farmers and other stakeholders and to understand key groundnut production and marketing conditions in Uganda. The second was a household survey carried out in seven districts falling under four farming systems where groundnut is important. A total

of 945 farmers were interviewed using a semi-structured survey instrument to gather a range of data on socioeconomic and production conditions, farmer preferences, market participation, access to seed and agribusiness services, and farmer technology choice. The survey revealed that most farmers had experience growing groundnuts and many had also heard of the improved varieties, particularly Serenut 2 and Serenut 3. Of the two main traditional varieties, Red Beauty and Kabonge, Red Beauty was the most widely grown. Scientists often use the proportion of a household’s land planted to a variety as a measure of adoption intensity.

Some basic socioeconomic characteristics of sampled farm households in Uganda ü Some 12% of households surveyed were femaleheaded. ü Average household size is 7.1 persons. ü The average household dependency ratio is around 2; in other words, for every productive member of a household, there are 2 non-productive members. ü Households are on average located 2 km from the nearest village market, 5 km from the nearest main market, and 2 km from the nearest all-weather road. ü Sixty-eight percent of households own a radio, a mobile phone, and/or a television. ü The average farm size is around 2.6 ha per household. ü The mean value of all non-land household assets is Ush 838,000, of which livestock assets accounted for about 78%, revealing the importance of livestock in the country

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

The survey showed that for adopters about 62% of the area under groundnut was planted with improved varieties. When comparing those who use improved groundnut varieties with those who do not, it was clear that adopters devote more land to groundnut production, obtain higher yields, and consequently both consume and sell more groundnuts. Farmers used the income from groundnut sales to buy essential items such as mosquito nets, which help prevent malaria; they also used the money to send girls, who would otherwise be married off or have to work on the farm, to school. The survey was also able to quantify some of the benefits of growing improved varieties. Igola and the Serenut series had yields on average 34% higher and they fetched 88% more net income per hectare. However, the production cost of the improved varieties was calculated to be 2% higher than the cost for the

Improved groundnut varieties in the field.

traditional varieties. This is because the adoption of improved varieties often entails higher labor costs, especially in terms of harvesting, drying and shelling. Despite this, the improved varieties are more profitable and of the five improved varieties, Serenut 2, with its rosette resistance and drought tolerance, has the highest yield and the highest rate of return on investment.

Drivers of adoption A number of factors contribute to adoption of a variety. For example, farmers who have adopted one improved variety are likely to adopt others. The survey results also showed that farmers who have greater experience in groundnut production and are better educated are more likely to adopt new varieties. Farmers who are members of organized groups seemed to be more likely to adopt the most popular variety (Serenut 2). This may be due to the better access to information about new varieties and better access to credit as farmer organizations often offer money and in-kind (seed) credit. The results also highlight the importance of household assets such as bicycles (a proxy for access to means of transport) and physical assets other than livestock in enhancing variety adoption. Adoption of a new variety can be viewed as a multi-step process. The first is that the farmer develops the desire to adopt the new variety after having analyzed available information on the performance of the variety in the target area. The second step is for the farmer to access the new seeds. Access refers to the ability of the

Improved groundnut varieties

farmer to purchase the seed as well as the availability of the seed itself in the local area. Some households may be constrained in terms of access to seeds because of a lack of local supply or credit to buy the new seeds. Interestingly, a household with a female workforce is more able to overcome the cash constraint because women traditionally participate in off-farm income generating activities as well as savings through villagebased merry-go-round saving institutions. In terms of actually finding the seed, “those farmers with access to information and who have contact with extension or research were better able to access new seeds,” says Shiferaw. Belonging to a crop production group increases a farmer’s chances of getting hold of improved seed and reduced the capital constraint. And once a farmer buys the improved seed, the final decision is how much of it to use or what area to plant. “The farmer has to sequentially overcome the capital and seed constraints before deciding the level of adoption of an improved variety,” says Shiferaw. Some of the factors that influence such a decision positively (ie, to sow a larger area to an improved variety) include whether or not the farmer has been exposed to the variety before, level of education, and the presence of a male family workforce.

must be promoted for wider diffusion and dissemination in all the suitable growing regions. “This study highlights the importance of access to improved seeds and the necessary capital for adoption of improved varieties,” says Shiferaw. Given the large seed requirements, capital constraints are likely to be more limiting for adoption of groundnuts than other dryland pulses like pigeonpea. Improving credit services and strengthening the informal and formal rural seed systems can greatly spur adoption of improved varieties. Also, since prior use of the variety influences the adoption intensity, participatory variety selection and promotion of new varieties with farmers can also enhance the adoption of new cultivars. Along with improved supply of inputs, better access to markets and the ability to control aflatoxin contamination will also create opportunities and incentives for farmers to adopt new varieties.

Policy options and next steps Groundnut technologies have been underutilized in terms of enhancing rural incomes and fighting poverty and malnutrition in Uganda. The available technologies and promising varieties

Farmer field days can help increase adoption of improved varieties.

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

ReSAKSS-Southern Africa: Informing Those Who Make Policy When food prices skyrocketed earlier this year, a whole host of questions were raised in their wake. Everyone from consumers to producers and exporters wanted to know the answers to questions such as: Is this a trend that is likely to continue? What is causing food prices to rise? How will it affect any given country’s ability to import and export agricultural products? How do we make sure that the poor, who are already spending so much of their disposable income on food, are able to cope with the rising prices?

One of the most important groups of people who found they suddenly needed some of these questions answered were policy makers. In southern Africa they were able to turn to a relatively new organization called Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System for Southern Africa (ReSAKSS-SA) to obtain information to help them make better-informed decisions that would shape agricultural policy for the future.

ReSAKSS in action 15

2015 2010

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

0 1980

Annual growth (%)

–5

–10 –15

Figure 1. SADC agricultural GDP growth rate in the past has been erratic, with no significant increases. Policies that encourage sustained growth are needed.

As a region, southern Africa has both problems and promises of its own. “One of the problems is that agricultural productivity growth fluctuates a lot. It is now growing at 2% in the region but production per capita is decreasing. In other words we are importing more,” says Pius Chilonda, the Regional Coordinator for ReSAKSS, based in Pretoria, South Africa (Figure 1). The region has also committed itself to achieving certain goals. For example, the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) calls for a 6% annual growth rate in agricultural GDP. In order to achieve this, countries in the region have promised to invest 10% of their national budgets in agriculture. Southern Africa is also committed to achieving Millennium

ReSAKSS-SA

Development Goal 1 to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. In the 3 years since its inception, ReSAKSS-SA has positioned itself as a storehouse of information that policy makers in the region can draw on to answer questions related to the agriculture sector. “Our goal is to influence agricultural policies in southern Africa. We provide analysis and knowledge support for planning, review and policy dialogue for agricultural growth and poverty reduction,” says Chilonda. Funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department for International Development (DFID), and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), ReSAKSS-SA is an inter-CG center collaboration between ICRISAT, the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Currently, ReSAKSS-SA is staffed by the Regional Coordinator, a Principal Economist, a Knowledge Management Officer, two Postdoctoral Fellows, and a Research Assistant and works in the three pilot countries of Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia. Similar initiatives are being implemented in eastern and western Africa.

New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) are invaluable partners in the implementation of ReSAKSS-SA programs and also an audience for the policy recommendations. “SADC and COMESA are increasingly relying on ReSAKSS for valueadded products,” says Chilonda. Some examples of ReSAKSS products include annual regional trends and outlook reports to inform the policy dialogue about agricultural growth trends as well as various public expenditure reports that show the commitment of governments in investing in agriculture. Some other topics of research include contract farming, growth options, the impact of subsidies and policy reduction in southern Africa (in collaboration with IFPRI), and strategic analysis of water management in agriculture. When food prices suddenly spiked ReSAKSS-SA was prepared. “When a new issue emerges, such as the rise in food prices,

Challenges and achievements According to Chilonda, one of the biggest challenges for ReSAKSS-SA has been building successful partnerships. “Our relationship with SADC and NEPAD is very good. I can say that we have succeeded here. We have positioned ReSAKSS as a source of information,” says Chilonda. SADC and the

The ReSAKSS team give a presentation on Agricultural Growth Trends at the annual Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) Stakeholders Meeting held in Lusaka, Zambia on 3−7 September 2007. Pictured with Minde and Chilonda from left to right are the Agriculture Permanent Secretary of Zambia, the African Union Policy Program Officer, and the Senior Agricultural Advisor of COMESA.

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

SAKSS becomes an instrument for quickly feeding analytical information to regional bodies, in this case SADC. With policy, urgency is key. The issue will not wait. We had to do a quick show-and-tell analysis,” says Isaac Minde, Principal Economist for ReSAKSS-SA. Chilonda met with Margaret Nyirenda, the Director of Food and Agriculture, Natural Resources, SADC, based in Gabarone to brief her on the issue. They also wrote a policy brief outlining the origin of the issue, provided an analysis of how different countries could be affected and concluded with short- and long-term policy recommendations. Some of the short-term policy recommendations to reduce the negative impacts of the food price hike were: • Social protection: In-kind and cash-based transfers (e.g., farm input, food vouchers, food-for-work and school feeding programs) can provide safety nets for the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. • Consumer subsidies: broad-based subsidies can cap domestic price increases; however, experiences in other countries show that these measures are costly as they do not target just the poor and are also difficult to terminate. • Tax and tariff policy: Reducing taxes and tariffs on imported food commodities has the dual benefit of lowering consumer prices and maintaining incentives for farmers to increase production. • Export restrictions: While export restrictions can conserve domestic supplies in the short run, they deny farmers the benefits of participating in external markets and in the long run can destabilize regional markets.

The long-term policy options addressed the need to buffer consumers from the high prices while also allowing farmers to benefit from the higher prices. Farmers are prevented from responding to the increased prices by the lack of adequate access to seeds, fertilizers and other inputs, poorly functioning markets, and poor transportation infrastructure. “Soft” market infrastructure such as market information systems, commodity exchanges, agricultural R&D and veterinary services are also needed. Another long-term policy consideration is to establish an environment that promotes intra-regional trade in food commodities. Sound regulatory and legal frameworks are needed to encourage long-term investment in physical, human, and organizational capacity in agribusiness. This, along with a regional comprehensive market intelligence system, would greatly facilitate risk management measures. The policy recommendations regarding the rise in food prices were well-received by SADC Permanent Secretaries of Agriculture in their Regional Vulnerability Assessment Meeting held on 7 July 2008 in Johannesburg, South Africa. Nyirenda was very pleased with the presentation and requested Minde to make the same presentation to the Ministers of Agriculture at a later meeting in Lusaka, Zambia. “It is difficult to measure impact on policy,” says Minde. However, if through analysis and dialogue governments agree to reverse certain policies, such as the decision to ban exports, then this would cause real impact by providing producers with the opportunity to participate more effectively in export agriculture and therefore realize higher incomes.

Disaster preparedness, relief and recovery

Disaster Preparedness, Relief and Recovery: How to Respond Successfully to Natural Disaster and Conflict Agricultural research undertaken in Southern Sudan in the 1980s showed that the sorghum variety Serena (originally developed in Uganda as an early-maturing commercial crop) was not suitable for Southern Sudan because its bitter taste was not well-liked by subsistence-oriented farmers. Unaware of this research, relief agencies working to promote food security distributed seed of Serena sorghum well into the 1990s. Not surprisingly, very

few farmers planted the variety, even though it was distributed for free. â&#x20AC;&#x153;These problems arise because relief agencies working in situations affected by conflict or natural disaster generally have neither the time nor the expertise needed to fully understand local agricultural systems, and information available from research is rarely disseminated among such agencies,â&#x20AC;? says Catherine Longley, scientist at ICRISATNairobi.

This destroyed tank lies in a groundnut field â&#x2C6;&#x2019; a reminder that peace is still new in Southern Sudan.

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

Table 1. Numbers of people affected by natural disasters in ESA, 1998–2007 Year

Drought

Earthquake

Epidemic

Flood

Slide

Volcano

Wave surge

Wind Storm

Total

1998

4,911,000

121,192

2,252,600

7,284,792

1999

30,697,545

2,300

1,000,606

395,096

13,000

32,139,357

2000

33,977,835

750

791,477

5,372,276

1,106,558

41,245,896

2001

35,020,000

130,260

2,054,419

1,000

37,205,679

2002

37,799,435

1535

580,589

710,300

629,850

39,721,709

2003

26,334,500

63,982

1,082,088

137,641

27,618,211

2004

34,849,000

31,907

685,845

109,560

773,000

36,449,312

2005

17,739,000

5000

54,524

531,691

890

18,624,105

2006

16,514,000

28,722

1,916,360

2000

87,647

18,570,993

373,195

8,667,173

2007 5,067,750 154,612 3,069,616 0 Source: The International Disaster Database (EM-DAT): www.cred.be

Relief agencies are often hampered by a lack of both the diagnostic tools to really understand the problems and the technical knowledge to develop and promote sustainable solutions. With the ability to provide research-based recommendations, international agricultural research centers can be invaluable in helping relief agencies achieve the most impact from their interventions and promote food security in highly stressed and unstable situations. Natural disaster and conflict are regularly occurring events in ESA, affecting at least one in every 12 people. Close to 20 out of the 25 countries in the region are in ‘stressed situations’ due to plant disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and political instability and/or conflict. Of the natural

293,000 2,000

disasters, drought affects the most people, followed by floods (Table 1). These numbers are only expected to rise with increased climate variability. Political instability and/or conflict has affected at least ten ESA countries in the recent past. Whether short-lived such as Kenya’s post-election violence or longlived as in the case of Somalia, the impacts on agricultural systems are often severe. Displaced farmers are unable to work their fields and family compositions may change, reducing available labor or increasing the numbers of dependents. “We can no longer look at these situations as unusual,” says Longley. “They have to be incorporated into our research agenda.”

Disaster preparedness, relief and recovery

Impacts of conflict and natural disaster on agricultural production ü Insecurity or natural disaster prevents laborers, input providers and traders from accessing farms at key times in the production cycle. ü Expanding urban populations due to displacement affects market demands and intensifies peri-urban production, thus competing with rural producers experiencing increasing transport costs. ü Changing household composition (due to death, abduction, displacement or migration) reduces family labor and in some cases increased access to remittances. ü The loss or depletion of financial assets limits access to agricultural inputs. ü Displacement forces some farmers to abandon their farms and/or production output altogether and associated systems of soil and water management break down. ü Access to land, labor and other inputs is limited in places of refuge. ü Agricultural outputs are forcibly extorted by warlords and local militia and this may disrupt or alter produce-marketing channels.

ü Agricultural land, pastures and irrigation resources may be adversely affected by natural disasters. ü Formal input delivery systems cease to function. ü Formal quality control, regulatory and phytosanitary institutions cease to function, leading to shifts in export markets and lower product prices. ü Changes in the local economy (either related to conflict or relief food supply) may contribute to rendering staple food production unprofitable (though other crops may become more profitable, e.g. fruit and vegetables for growing urban markets). ü Destruction of common property resources decreases production of crops/products that have an important safety net function. ü Concentration of displaced populations, e.g. around a few functioning water points, leads to over-exploitation of certain land areas, and may have long-term negative consequences for the natural resource base.

Source: Longley, C., Christoplos, I. and Slaymaker, T. 2006. Agricultural Rehabilitation: Mapping the linkages between humanitarian relief, social protection and development. HPG Research Report. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Typical responses and their limitations The types of relief and recovery responses to promote food security usually fall into one of five categories: food aid, seed aid, non-seed inputs and services, support to promote markets, and social

protection. While sometimes effective, these interventions may fail to achieve the desired outcome, as was the case with Serena sorghum. “The emergency relief sector is especially poor at undertaking impact assessments to determine how effective the intervention truly is. The focus is on how many households received

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

assistance rather than on whether or not the assistance had a positive impact,” says Longley. International agricultural research centers can help relief agencies assess the success of their efforts. ICRISAT, for example, has shown the limitations of seed aid interventions implemented under the DfID-funded Protracted Relief Programme (PRP), which aimed to help 25,000 vulnerable households in Zimbabwe improve their food security. One of the five components of the PRP was to distribute seed of major food crops including maize, sorghum, cowpea, pearl millet and groundnuts. “Seed aid, especially through seed fairs, has become really common in Zimbabwe. Seed fairs provide better choice of locally adapted seed types and are more cost-effective than direct distribution,” says Kizito Mazvimavi, Scientist based at ICRISAT-Bulawayo. But the seed fairs should

operate on a competitive pricing basis and organizers should avoid giving preference to outside agro-dealers. ICRISAT has recently published a manual on planning and implementing seed fairs in Zimbabwe. The manual provides NGOs with guidelines on targeting seed fair sites, community mobilization, voucher distribution and timing of implementation. Besides conducting impact assessments and making recommendations on the way relief and recovery programs are run, ICRISAT has also helped in the development of diagnostic and analytical tools to determine food vulnerability, as well as conducted market studies and baseline surveys. The latter are particularly important given that existing information will no longer be up-to-date as a result of the changes brought about by the conflict or natural disaster. It is also important to work at the policy level. In the case of Somalia, ICRISAT’s research findings into seed systems highlighted the gap between farmers’ practices and the assumptions of European Commission (EC)-funded seed interventions in southern Somalia. The research had a direct impact on policy, as the EC revised its strategy for agricultural interventions in Somalia.

Working together

Seed fairs offer farmers greater choice of locally adapted seed types.

Other CGIAR centers in the region are also working in situations affected by conflict and natural disaster and these efforts can have greater impact through collective action based around a clearly defined strategic framework. This has

Disaster preparedness, relief and recovery

been the motivation for the creation of Flagship 4 (FP4) on improving the impact of emergency response on agricultural livelihoods in highly stressed and unstable systems. The program’s overall aim is to enhance food security and reduce poverty in ESA countries affected by natural disaster, political instability and/or conflict through scientific research and research-related activities that contribute towards effective and appropriate emergency preparedness, relief and recovery interventions. FP4 is one of four FPs that comprise the CGIAR’s Regional Plan for eastern and southern Africa, which consists of a network of the 15 CGIAR centers with sub-regional organizations, Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), regional networks and voluntary partners primarily from national agricultural institutes and universities that aims to add value to ongoing agricultural research in eastern and southern Africa.

Participants at the FP4 Workshop held in Nairobi in May 2008 agreed that the concept of a ‘Community of Practice’ would provide an appropriate vehicle for generating and sharing knowledge and learning for enhanced agricultural interventions in response to disasters. Ravi Prabhu, Coordinator of the CGIAR Regional Plan for Collective Action in ESA, says that, “Country-based ‘community of practice’ clusters already exist informally for Zimbabwe, southern Sudan, Somalia and Central Africa. These clusters can potentially link up through FP4 to learn from each other and develop regional public goods relating to disaster preparedness, relief and recovery. It will also be necessary to support additional cross-country clusters that focus on specific themes or types of response, such as drought response, seed sector interventions, or crop disease response for greater impact.”

Appendices

Publications Belder P, Bouman BAM and Spiertz JHJ. 2007. Exploring options for water savings in lowland rice using a modeling approach. Agricultural Systems 92: 91−114. Belder P, Senzanje A, Manzungu E, Twomlow SJ and Rohrbach DD. 2007. Can drip irrigation improve livelihood of smallholders: Lessons learned from Zimbabwe. Pages 245–256 in Proceedings of the SADC Land and Water Conference (Mapiki A, ed.). 20–22 February 2007, Gaborone, Botswana. Gaborone, Botswana: SADC Secretariat. Badiani R, Dercon S, Krishnan P and Rao KPC. 2007. Changes in living standards in villages in India 1975–2004: Revisiting the ICRISAT village level studies (Baulch R., ed.). CPRC Working Paper No. 85. Oxford, UK: Chronic Poverty Research Centre, Department of International Development, Oxford University, UK. 26 pp. Bossio D, Critchley W, Geheb K, van Lynden G and Mati B. 2007. Conserving land, protecting water. Pages 551–583 in Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (Molden D, ed.). Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. London: Earthscan and Colombo: International Water Management Institute. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/Publications/research_reports.htm. Chakeredza S, Hove L, Akinnifesi FK, Franzel S, Ajayi OC and Gudeta S. 2007. Managing fodder trees as a solution to human–livestock food conflicts and their contribution to income generation for smallholder farmers in southern Africa. Natural Resources Forum 31: 286–296. Chilonda P, Machete C and Minde I. 2007. Poverty, food security and agricultural trends in southern Africa. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System for Southern Africa. IWMI Pretoria, South Africa (Otte J [Coordinator, Pro-Poor Livestock Policies Initiative, FAO, Rome], Jayne T [Professor, Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University], and Mdladla P [Regional Coordinator, FEWSNet, Pretoria South Africa], eds.). 40 pp. Githiri SM, Yang D, Khan NA, Xu D, Komatsuda T and Takahashi R. 2007. QTL analysis of low temperature-induced browning in soybean seed coats. Journal of Heredity 98: 360–366.

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

Graham RD, Ross MW, Saunders DA, Ortiz-Monasterio I, Bouis HE, Bonierbale M, De Haan S, Burgos G, Thiele G, Liria R, Meisner C, Beebe S, Pott MJ, Kadian M, Hobbs PR, Gupta RK and Twomlow S. 2007. Nutritious food substances. Advances in Agronomy 92: 1–74. Grenier C, Ibrahim Y, Haussmann BIG, Kiambi D and Ejeta G. 2007. Marker-assisted selection for Striga resistance in sorghum. Pages 159–171 in Integrating New Technologies for Striga Control : Towards Ending the Witch-Hunt (Ejeta G and Gressel J, eds.). World Scientific. http://www.worldscibooks.com/lifesci/6470.html, http://www.worldscibooks.com/ contact/authors.shtml. Gwata ET, Mligo JK and Silim SN. 2007. Registration of pigeonpea cultivar ‘Tumia’. Crop Science 41: 436. Gwata ET, Silim SN and Siambi M. 2007. Development of photoperiod insensitive pigeonpea cultivars for southern Africa. Biotechnology, Breeding and Seed Systems for African Crops – Third Meeting, Rockefeller Foundation and Instituto de Investigaçio Agraria de Moçambique, 25–29 March 2007, Maputo, Mozambique (van Houten H, Tom K and Tom-Wielgosz V, eds.). 76 pp. Homann S, Rischkowsky B and Steinbach J. 2007. The effect of development interventions on the use of indigenous range management strategies in the Borana lowlands in Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development. www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117868308/PDFSTART Hove L, Twomlow SJ, Rohrbach D, Mashingaidze N, Moyo M, Maphosa P and Mupangwa W. 2007. Planting basins increase maize yields for smallholder farmers in semi-arid areas of southern and western Zimbabwe. Pages 535–547 in SADC Land and Water Management Applied Research and Training Programme and Compendium of papers to the 2nd Scientific Symposium, 20–22 February 2007, SADC Secretariat, Gaborone, Botswana. Iwashina T, Githiri SM, Benitez ER, Takemura T, Kitajima J and Takahashi R. 2007. Analysis of flavonoids in flower petals of soybean near-isogenic lines for flower and pubescence colour genes. Journal of Heredity 98: 250–257. Jones RB and Rakotoarisaona JJ. 2007. Supporting the development of sustainable seed systems for non-hybrid crops. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Indigenous Vegetables and Legumes Prospectus for Fighting Poverty, Hunger and Malnutrition, Hyderabad, India (Chadha MI, Kuo G and Gowda CLL, eds.). Acta Horticulturae. 752: 77-82. http://www.actahort.org/books/752 38

Publications

Kimani, JM, Kimani PM, Githiri SM and Kimenju JW. 2007. Mode of inheritance of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) traits for tolerance to low soil phosphorus (P). Euphytica 155: 225–234. Kisandu DB, Ntundu W, Marandu WY and Mgonja MA. 2007. Germplasm collection and evaluation of finger millet in Tanzania: Challenges and opportunities for improved production. Pages 23–32 in Finger Millet Blast Management in East Africa. Creating Opportunities for Improving Production and Utilization of Finger Millet (Mgonja MA, Lenne J, Manyasa JM and Sreenivasprasad S, eds.). UK Department for International Development - Crop Protection Programme. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/ whri/newsandevents/publications/fm_blast_proceedings_2007.pdf Lenné JM, Takan JP, Mgonja MA, Manyasa EO, Kaloki P, Wanyera N, Okwadi J, Muthumeenakshi S, Brown AE, Tamale M and Sreenivasaprasad S. 2007. Finger millet blast disease management: A key entry point for fighting malnutrition and poverty in East Africa. Outlook on Agriculture 36(2): 101–108. Mahoo HF, Admassu H, Rao KPC, Mugugu AT and Mati B. 2007. Agricultural water management, a critical factor in the reduction of poverty and hunger: Principles and recommendations for action to guide policy in Eastern and Southern Africa, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Agricultural Water Management “Water for Millennium Development Goal on Poverty and Hunger”, 18–22 September 2006, Maputo, Mozambique (Kay M and Hatibu N. eds.). Improved Management of Agricultural Water in Eastern and Southern Africa (IMAWESA) Project of the Association for Strengthening Agricultural research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA) and ICRISAT, Nairobi, Kenya. 30 pp. Manyasa EO, Silim SN, Christiansen JL and Githiri SM. 2007. Diversity of Tanzanian pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp)] landraces. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Indigenous Vegetables and Legumes Prospectus for Fighting Poverty, Hunger and Malnutrition, Hyderabad, India (Chadha MI, Kuo G and Gowda CLL, eds.). Acta Horticulturae. 752: 169-174. http://www.actahort.org/books/752 Manyasa EO, Silim SN, Githiri SM and Christiansen JL. 2007. Diversity in Tanzanian pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L) Millsp.] landraces and their response to environments. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 55(3): 379–387. www.springerlink.com/index/ b224014117012g11.pdf Mashingaidze N, Belder P, Twomlow SJ and Hove L. 2007. Put your plants on a nitrogen pill – an alternative microdosing strategy: Preliminary results from Zimbabwe. Pages 523–533 in SADC Land and Water Management Applied Research and Training 39

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

Programme (Mapik A, ed.). SADC Land and Water Conference, 20–22 February 2007, Gaborone, Botswana. Gaborone, Botswana: SADC Secretariat. Mazvimavi K and Twomlow S. 2007. Conservation farming for agricultural relief and development in Zimbabwe. Pages 169–178 in No-Till Farming Systems (Goddard T, Zoebisch MA, Gan YT, Ellis W, Watson A and Sombatpanit S, eds.). Bangkok, Thailand: Special Publication No.3, World Association of Soil and Water Conservation. http://waswc.erecon.jp/S-Publication/NO-TILL%20book%20071225%20w%20copublishers.pdf Mazvimavi K, Twomlow S, Belder P and Hove L. 2007. An Assessment of the Sustainable Uptake of Conservation Farming in Zimbabwe. 69 pp. Mgonja MA, Lenne JM, Manyasa E and Sreenivasaprasad S.(eds). 2007. Finger Millet Blast Management in East Africa. Creating Opportunities for Improving Production and Utilization of Finger Millet. UK Department for International Development – Crop Protection Programme. 196 pp. Mgonja MA, Manyasa E, Kibuka J, Kaloki P, Nyaboke S and Wandera G. 2007. Importance, blast management and promotion of identified blast resistant varieties in Western and Nyanza Provinces of Kenya. Pages 49–65 in Finger Millet Blast Management in East Africa. Creating Opportunities for Improving Production and Utilization of Finger Millet (Mgonja MA, Lenne J, Manyasa JM and Sreenivasprasad S, eds.). UK Department for International Development-Crop Protection Programme. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/whri/newsandevents/publications/fm_blast_ proceedings_2007.pdf Molden D, Frenken K, Barker R, de Fraiture C, Mati B, Svendsen M, Sadoff C and Finlayson CM. 2007. Trends in water and agricultural development. Pages 57–89 in Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (Molden D, ed.). Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. London: Earthscan and Colombo: International Water Management Institute. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/Publications/research_reports.htm. Mupangwa W, Twomlow S, Hove L and Walker S. 2007. Effect of minimum tillage and mulching on maize (Zea mays L.) yield and water content of clayey and sandy soils. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 32: 1127–1134. Mupangwa W, Twomlow SJ, Walker S and Hove L. 2007. Effect of minimum tillage and mulching on maize (Zea mays L.) yield and water content of clayey and sandy soils. Pages 497–508 in SADC Land and Water Management Applied Research and Training

Publications

Programme and Compendium of papers to the 2nd Scientific Symposium, 20–22 February 2007. Gaborone, Botswana: SADC Secretariat. Mutegi CK, Hendriks SL, Jones RB, Okello JJ and Ngugi HK. 2007. Role of collective action and handling practices on aflatoxin contamination of groundnuts: Evidence from Kenya. African Crop Science Society Proceedings. El-Minia, Egypt, 27–31 October 2007. 8(part 3 of 4):1779–1782. Nackoney J, Mati B, Mock G and Henninger N. 2007. Water. Pages 25–41 in Nature’s Benefits in Kenya. An Atlas of Ecosystems and Human Well-being (Mock G, Holmes K, Cooper E, Cotton L and Billings H, eds.). World Resources Institute; Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Kenya; Central Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Planning and National Development, Kenya; International Livestock Research Institute. Washington, DC and Nairobi: World Resources Institute. http://www.wri.org/publication/natures-benefits-in-kenya Ncube B, Dimes J, Twomlow S, Mupangwa W and Giller K. 2007. Raising the productivity of smallholder farms under semi-arid conditions by use of small doses of manure and nitrogen: A case of participatory research. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 77: 53–67. Ncube B, Twomlow S, Wijk M, Dimes J and Giller K. 2007. Productivity and residual benefits of grain legumes to sorghum grown in rotation under semi-arid conditions in south-western Zimbabwe. Plant and Soil 299(1): 1–15. Nkonya E, Shiferaw B and Msangi S. 2007. Food security in the drylands of south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa: Research challenges and opportunities. Annals of Arid Zone 40. [Invited article for the special issue on Alternate Land Use Systems for Sept 2007 issue]. Okello JJ and Swinton SM. 2007. Compliance with international food safety standards in Kenya’s green bean industry: A paired case study of small and large family farms. Review of Agricultural Economics 29: 269–285. Peden D, Tadesse G and Misra AK with contributing authors Ahmed FA, Astatke A, Ayalneh W, Herrero M, Kiwuwa G, Kumsa T, Mati B, Mpairwe D, Wassenaar T and Yimegnuhal A. 2007. Comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. Pages 485–514 in Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (Molden, D, ed.). London: Earthscan and Colombo: International Water Management Institute. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/Publications/research_reports.htm. 41

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

Rao KPC and Kumara Charyulu D. 2007. Changes in agriculture and village economies (Minde I, Foster A and Dercon S, eds.). Research Bulletin No. 21, GT-IMPI, ICRISAT. 136 pp. Rao KPC, Kumara Charyulu D and Gine X. 2007. Role of micro-finance in providing credit and insurance services in drought-prone areas of Andhra Pradesh. Artha Vikas 42: 32–48. Rockström J, Hatibu N, Oweis T and Wani SP. 2007. Managing water in rainfed agriculture. Pages 315–348 in Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (Molden D, ed.). London, UK: Earthscan and Colombo, Srilanka: International Water Management Institute. Rusike J, Twomlow S and Varadachary A. 2007. Impact of farmer field schools on adoption of soil water and nutrient management technologies in dry areas of Zimbabwe. Paper 6.3 in Land and Water Management for Sustainable Agriculture (Mapiki A and Nhira C, eds.). Proceedings of the EU/SADC Land and Water Management Applied Research and Training Programme’s Inaugural Scientific Symposium, Malawi Institute Management, Lilongwe, Malawi, 14–16 February 2006. Shapiro BI, Winslow M, Traoré PCS, Balaji V, Cooper P, Rao KPC, Wani S and Koala S. 2007. Pages 63–70 in Climate Applications and Agriculture: CGIAR Efforts, Capacities and Partner Opportunities (Sivakumar MVK et al. eds.). Climate Prediction and Agriculture: Advances and Challenges, WMO. Springer-Verlag. Siambi M, Jones RB, Estrada J and NASFAM. 2007. Overcoming market challenges for smallholder farmers: The case of groundnuts in Malawi. In Africa Can Feed Itself, (Naestad A, ed.). Silim SN. 2007. Pigeonpea improvement in eastern and southern Africa: Varietal development for different agro-ecologies and end users. Biotechnology, Breeding and Seed Systems for African Crops – Third Meeting, Rockefeller Foundation and Insituto de Investigacio Agraria de Mocambique, 25–29 March 2007, Maputo, Mozambique (van Houten H, Tom K and Tom-Wielgosz V, eds.). 215 pp. Takahashi R, Githiri SM, Hatayama K, Dubouzet EG, Shimada N, Aoki T, Ayabe S, Iwashina T, Toda K and Matsumura H. 2007. A single-base deletion in soybean flavonol synthase gene is associated with magenta flower color. Plant Molecular Biology 63: 125–135.

Publications

Traoré PCS, Kouressy M, Vaksmann M, Tabo R, Maikano I, Traoré SB and Cooper PJM. 2007. Pages 189–203 in Climate Prediction and Agriculture: What is Different about Sudano-Sahelian West Africa? (Sivakumar MVK et al. eds.). Climate Prediction and Agriculture: Advances and Challenges, WMO. Springer-Verlag. Twomlow S, Rohrbach D, Rusike J, Mupangwa W, Dimes J and Ncube B. 2007. Spreading the word on fertilizer in Zimbabwe. Paper 6.21 in Land and Water Management for Sustainable Agriculture (Mapiki A and Nhira C, eds.). Proceedings of the EU/SADC Land and Water Management Applied Research and Training Programme’s Inaugural Scientific Symposium, Malawi Institute Management, Lilongwe, Malawi, 14–16 February 2006. Twomlow S, Rohrbach D, Hove L, Mupangwa W, Mashingaidze N, Moyo M and Chiroro C. 2007. Conservation farming by basins breathes new life into smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. Paper 7.2 in Land and Water Management for Sustainable Agriculture (Mapiki A and Nhira C, eds.). Proceedings of the EU/SADC Land and Water Management Applied Research and Training Programme’s Inaugural Scientific Symposium, Malawi Institute Management, Lilongwe, Malawi, 14–16 February 2006. Twomlow S, Rohrbach D, Rusike J, Mupangwa W, Dimes J, Ncube B, Hove L, Moyo M, Mashingaidze N and Maphosa P. 2007. Micro-dosing as a pathway to Africa’s green revolution. Evidence from participatory on-farm trials. Symposium Abstracts (Batiano A et al. eds.). AFNET and SOFECSA International Symposium on Innovations as Key to the Green Revolution in Africa: Exploring the Scientific Facts. Arusha, Tanzania, 17–21 September 2007. Upadhyaya HD, Pundir RPS and Gowda CLL. 2007. Genetic resources diversity of finger millet – a global perspective. Pages 90–101 in Finger Millet Blast Management in East Africa. Creating Opportunities for Improving Production and Utilization of Finger Millet (Mgonja MA, Lenne J, Manyasa JM and Sreenivasprasad S, eds.). UK Department for International Development – Crop Protection Programme. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/whri/newsandevents/publications/fm_blast_ proceedings_2007.pdf Upadhyaya HD, Reddy KN, Gowda CLL and Silim SN. 2007. Patterns of diversity in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) germplasm collected from different elevations in Kenya. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 54: 1787–1795.

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

Staff List ICRISAT–Nairobi

Administration Director-ESA Assistant Director-ESA Regional Administrator Administrative Assistant Assistant Accountant Accounts Assistant Driver/General Assistant Driver/General Assistant Research Division Regional Research Program Coordinator and Principal Scientist Regional Research Program Coordinator and Senior Scientist Principal Scientist Senior Scientist Molecular Geneticist Regional Scientist Regional Scientist Regional Scientist Project Leader-LLP Special Project Scientist Visiting Scientist

S.N. Silim R.B. Jones P. Ndung’u L. Bwire J. Mwangi A. Gakinya A. Mutuku D. Kisavi

M. Mgonja

B. Shiferaw P. Cooper K.P.C. Rao D. Kiambi S. de Villiers K. Semagn** S. Githiri M. Mburu C. Longley J. Okello

ICRISAT–Bulawayo

Administration Country Administrator Senior Finance Officer Senior Associate Finance Finance Officer

A. Nyagadza I. Tapela M Sigauke O. Katsaura

Post-Doc Fellow Network Coordinator – ECARSAM Network Coordinator – SWMnet Regional Facilitator – IMAWESA Associate Professional Officer Associate Professional Officer Research Associate Research Associate Scientific Associate Technical Officer Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician Research Technician

E. Gwata*

Finance Officer Senior Administrative Associate Officer (Admin) Administrative Associate

O. Ncube

B. Mitaru* N. Hatibu* B. Mati M. van den Berg** P. Dixit** P. Audi G. Muricho E. Manyasa J. Kibuka M. Somo P. Kaloki R. Mutegi A. Oyoo** E. Muange* D. Ojwang A. Singh M. Kitavi M. Mbogori M. Kamau

Z.I. Mabhikwa S.L. Ncube C. Ndwalaza

Staff List

IT Manager Senior Technician (Mechanic) Administrative Assistant Office Assistant Stores Assistant Office Assistant Fleet & Workshop Assistant Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Office Assistant (Cleaner) Office Assistant (Cleaner) Field Supervisor Tractor Driver Field Recorder Field Recorder Laboratory Assistant Electrician Logistics & Procurement Officer Regional Editor

K. Mhuruyengwe Research Division

C. Mabika C. Donono A. Khanye S. Mnkandla J. Ndlovu M. Mpofu J. Masuku P. Chirwa M. Mlotshwa T. Mpofu M. Manyani T. Ndlovu S. Ndlovu Q. Nkomo J. Mpofu B. Ncube G. Mpofu J. Ndlovu D. Sibanda** C. Muvami** S. Sridharan

ICRISATâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Lilongwe

Administration Country Representative Finance/Administration Officer Accounts Assistant Accounts Clerk Administrative Assistant Associate (Administration) Driver/General Assistant Driver/General Assistant Driver/General Assistant Senior Guard Guard

Principal Scientist & Country Representative Global Theme Leader Scientist Senior Scientist Post-Doctoral Scientist Post-Doctoral Scientist Post-Doctoral Scientist Post-Doctoral Scientist Associate Professional Officer Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Consultant

M. Siambi

Guard Guard

B. Kachale T. Dambe A. Loga** H. Warren L. Chiwaya P. Nkhoma G. Nanthoka S. Ngâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ombe** R. Mandala H. Nankwenya

Research Division Principal Scientist-Breeding Associate Professional Officer Associate Professional Officer Senior Scientific Officer Senior Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Scientific Officer

I.J. Minde S.J. Twomlow A. van Rooyen J.P. Dimes L. Hove K. Mazvimavi S. Homann P. Belder S. Pandey** S. Kudita W. Mupangwa T. Musitini M. Moyo** P. Nyathi E. Masvaya P. Ndlovu A. Sibanda A. Chirima T. Pedzisa C. Ngulube** M. Madzvamuse

B. Chakongwa M. Bello

E. Monyo M. Osiru J. Verheijen O. Madzonga E. Chintu** H. Charlie H. Msere

ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa Region 2007 Highlights

Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Senior Associate (Research) Senior Associate (Research) Senior Associate (Research) Senior Associate (Research)

D. Kadyampakeni* W. Munthali** C. Mukhala** H. Chipeta E. Mkuwamba E. Chilumpha L. Gondwe

ICRISATâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Mozambique Administration Country Representative Accountant and Administration Driver Driver

C. Dominguez I. Lopes S.P. Vilanculos C. Ramos **

Senior Associate (Research) Associate (Research) Associate (Research) Associate (Research) Associate (Research) Associate (Research) Associate (Research)

T. Chirwa C. Kamanga E. Kumitete** R. Chirambo** I. Kimbwala** H. Mulenga** P. Gonani**

Research Division Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Scientific Officer Technical Assistant Technical Assistant

W. Leonardo** C. Ruface T. Campos ** A. Castro L. Benjamin**

* Left during the year ** Joined during the year

Acronyms

Acronyms ACIAR APSIM ARC CAADP CIMMYT COMESA CRS DFID EC ESA FANRPAN FAO FARA FP4 GDP IFAD IFPRI IIAM IWMI LCDP LIMPAST LPDA NAADS NARO NEPAD PRP ReSAKSS-SA SAARI SADC Sida USAID VCR

Australian Center for International Agricultural Research Agricultural Production Systems Simulator Agricultural Research Council Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa Catholic Relief Services Department for International Development European Commission eastern and southern Africa Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa Flagship 4 gross domestic product International Fund for Agricultural Development International Food Policy Research Institute Instituto de Investigaçao Agraria de Moçambique International Water Management Institute Limpopo Community Development Program Limpopo Agricultural Strategic Team Limpopo Province Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Advisory Services National Agricultural Research Organization New Partnership for Africa’s Development Protracted Relief Programme Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System for Southern Africa Serere Agricultural and Animal Research Institute Southern African Development Community Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency United States Agency for International Development value–cost ratio

ICRISAT–Nairobi [Regional Hub - Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA)] PO Box 39063, Nairobi 00623, Kenya Phone: +254 20 7224550 • Fax: +254 20 7224001 • Email: icrisat-nairobi@cgiar.org ICRISAT–Bulawayo Matopos Research Station PO Box 776, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe Phone: +263 83 8311 to 15 • Fax: +263 83 8253/8307 • Email: icrisatzw@cgiar.org ICRISAT–Lilongwe Chitedze Agricultural Research Station PO Box 1096, Lilongwe, Malawi Phone: +265 1 707297/071/067/057 • Fax: +265 1 707298 • Email: icrisat-malawi@cgiar.org ICRISAT–Maputo c/o Instituto Investigação Agraria de Moçambique (IIAM) Av. das FPLM No 2698, Caixa Postal 1906, Maputo, Mozambique Phone: +258 1 461657 • Fax: +258 1 461581 • Email: icrisatmoz@panintra.com